Beverage service. I ask Scott, our flight attendant for two Margaritas for me and my partner. I have ordered this drink on other flights (not Alaska) and thought it was a simple request. Scott sarcatically snaps back, “You want that blended, with salt around the rim too?” Getting the hint that we were not getting Margaritas, we ordered beer instead. Scott, our skinny little unhappy flight attendant. Maybe the wound covered by the band aid on your left cheek was hurting that day. The Alaska Airlines beverage menu includes Jose Cuervo Tequila. There must be mixer for it somewhere on the cart, you were just too busy acting important to notice.

It's time for airlines to include visible employee numbers below the name tag with clear instructions in every seat pocket for reporting rude flight attendants. It is time they be accountable for their behavior.

Actually Alaska doesn't serve Margaritas. Not even in first class. The margaritas offered on other airlines are almost always pre-mixed and, in my opinion, aren't very tasty anyway. Was his remark simply an attempt at humor? Of course what was said matters as much as how it was said. In the end, it is an airplane, not a bar.

And just why was the fact he had a Band-Aid significant? He might have cut himself shaving. Including that jab in your post makes me wonder what frame of mind you were in when this "incident" occurred.

In the relatively care-free regulated days of air travel there were jokes about "programmed" flight attendents. Some comedians suggested they had to start their pre-flight announcements over again if they skipped one line. So, even today, unless you place an order for something EXACTLY as it appears on the in-flight menu, the flight attendant is apt to react as if you're speaking Martian.

Since this is Alaska Air, I'll toss the flight attendant about two inches of slack: Some years ago, I was in FC on an Alaska Air flight. The flight attendant was doing sort of a nightclub comedy routine as part of the pre-flight announcements. So, maybe, just maybe, that was part of Alaska Air's unofficial in-flight comedy caberet. On the other hand, based on the tone of the comment, you may have run into a ****** queen!

As to wearing id, ABSOLUTELY, I agree: If flight attendants had to wear some kind of badge with a numeric code, in 2-inch tall font, identifying that crew member, I'm certain you'd seen a lot of power drunkeness, and general nasty attitudes left at the gate.

Again, the beverage menu on the Alaska Airlines website includes Jose Cuervo Tequila.

There must be some sort of mixer for it (Margarita) - unless they want us to do shots...

As for the Band Aid, I included that for identifying information in my complaint letter to Alaska and to make a point that when initiating a complaint about a flight attendant, the passenger only has a name tag with a first name on it. (How easy is that to change?)

I believe it would be more appropriate for flight attendants to wear a picture identification badge that includes a clearly visible employee number. Perhaps then they would be less likely to perform their duties in an anonymous manner and feel more accountable for their actions.

As for my state of mind, we were just two people on vacation, having a drink (one drink, the first and only of the day), on the way home.

Again, the beverage menu on the Alaska Airlines website includes Jose Cuervo Tequila.

There must be some sort of mixer for it (Margarita) - unless they want us to do shots...

Exactly. The beverage menu has Jose Cuervo. It did not specifically say Margaritas. As I mentioned most of the time the margaritas offered on planes is a pre-mixed product in a can. When they pour it over ice it still tastes like the can. You really weren't missing out on anything. Some people drink Cuervo and Coke. Actually tequila and Fresca/Squirt is very popular with the locals in Mexico. Tequila wasn't created exclusively for Margaritas. In fact, the Margarita is a fairly recent concoction (said to have been invented in the late '30s or early '40s) while tequila has been distilled for centuries.

Did you at least try the Alaskan Amber they serve?

Originally Posted by doogiekd

As for the Band Aid, I included that for identifying information in my complaint letter to Alaska and to make a point that when initiating a complaint about a flight attendant, the passenger only has a name tag with a first name on it. (How easy is that to change?)

I believe it would be more appropriate for flight attendants to wear a picture identification badge that includes a clearly visible employee number. Perhaps then they would be less likely to perform their duties in an anonymous manner and feel more accountable for their actions.

As for my state of mind, we were just two people on vacation, having a drink (one drink, the first and only of the day), on the way home.

Performing their duties in an anonymous manner? You're joking, right? You know the date, flight number and his first name. What more identifying information do you need? Was there more than one flight attendant named Scott on your flight? Believe it or not the airlines are required to keep meticulous records which include the names of the crew members on each and every flight. It won't be difficult at all to determine the crew member with the information you have.

maybe scott was just trying to make a joke, lighten up his day and the passengers, it seems like a pretty harmless and appears to be an attempt to be humulus/funny......unless he said it in a serious tone but it all depends on the way he said it, and from all of my experiences flying most of the flight attendants i have witnessed always try to make jokes here and there to try to make the flying experience a tad better

besides if you knew what they served before hand than why did you ask for something that they didnt have or show up on their online menu or wherever you found their drink list

"I'm sorry, we don't have Margaritas, I could offer you Jose Cuervo with..."

Agreed. Even if it was an attempt at humor, what is funny to one person, may not be to another. He should have stuck to simple, nicely put facts.

Originally Posted by doogiekd

the passenger only has a name tag with a first name on it. (How easy is that to change?)

I believe it would be more appropriate for flight attendants to wear a picture identification badge that includes a clearly visible employee number.

Originally Posted by Butch Cassidy Slept Here

If flight attendants had to wear some kind of badge with a numeric code, in 2-inch tall font, identifying that crew member, I'm certain you'd seen a lot of power drunkeness, and general nasty attitudes left at the gate.

As for the previous two quotes, I totally disagree. Do you wear a shirt with huge print that says your name and drivers license number on it? No, you don't, and you don't for a reason. That's also why none of us put our real names on this site, to avoid personal attacks by people who may disagree and have some ill intentions. Identities are increasingly easy to "thieve and plunder" these days. As for employees being able to easily change the name on their name tag, it would actually be VERY hard. Name tags are ordered using when the employee is hired using their LEGAL GIVEN NAME on their application and employee files. And when they need replacements, they are ENGRAVED using the same info. Unless you change your name, you can't change your name tag. Unless of course they are handwritten like they are at the local steak house, in which case would be enough of a deterrent for me to not fly that airline.

__________________I think Bigfoot is blurry, that's the problem. It's not the photographer's fault. Bigfoot is blurry, and that's extra scary to me. There's a large, out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside. Run, he's fuzzy, get out of here.
- Mitch Hedberg

Is life so bad, that one needs to be upset with the lack of a specific drink on an airliner? I won't comment on the FA, as I personally didn't hear his tone of voice. But if you really feel the need to write up a complaint to Alaska Air, his first name, flight number, and date of flight is all you need.

If I had my way, alcohol would be banned from flights and airports. Historically, they cause more trouble than it's worth.

Do you wear a shirt with huge print that says your name and drivers license number on it? No, you don't, and you don't for a reason. That's also why none of us put our real names on this site, to avoid personal attacks by people who may disagree and have some ill intentions. Identities are increasingly easy to "thieve and plunder"

So, perhaps, you can explain how someone goes about "thieving and plundering" a numeric code when, hopefully, access to the name attached to it is restricted by the flight attendant's employer. Lets face it. There are a few flight attendants who, just like rogue cops, get their kicks by bullying customers, for no good reason, with their authority. Then when someone talks about holding flight attendants responsible for their behavior we have to listen to people try to play the "security card" and other stupid tricks.

Until the government starts licensing flight attendants there is probably no point at even attempting to reign-in the bad behavior of these few. Given the low salaries the airlines know that "Sky Nazis," as some AA attendents like to call themselves, is something that goes with the territory.

So, perhaps, you can explain how someone goes about "thieving and plundering" a numeric code when, hopefully, access to the name attached to it is restricted by the flight attendant's employer.

I could explain how to steal an identity, but since the information is very readily accessible on the internet, I won't. If you want to know, just look it up, I swear, it's really easy to find. Be warned though, the govt watches websites that have such info and track IP addresses that frequent them. Moving on, by your logic, no identities would ever be stolen, since they should be protected by the government, or institution where an employer isn't involved. Numbers such as SSN, DL, DOB, DOD, military ID, checking acct, savings acct, student ID, so on and so forth are all used in stealing ones identity. Those are ALL numbers that should be protected, and are supposedly so. Yet many many times per day people use those very numbers to wreak havoc on others. Like I said, it's not hard. Passing out an employee number to anyone and everyone would be a bad idea, period. It's the same reason employees don't have their full name on their name tags, (and don't have to tell you their full name). In my experience, they are only required to give you a first name and last initial, or first initial and last name.

Originally Posted by Butch Cassidy Slept Here

Until the government starts licensing flight attendants there is probably no point at even attempting to reign-in the bad behavior of these few.

Who do you think certifies the training the FAs receive? Try the FAA and DOT on for size. They may not have a "license" in the sense of a DL, but their PRIMARY purpose is to ensure passenger safety, as they always say on the announcement, and have been certified by the government to do just that. Anything over that is a luxury, not a requirement, and it is certainly not a "passenger's right" to have a "waitress" on board.

Originally Posted by Butch Cassidy Slept Here

bad behavior of these few

So you admit it is only a few. At least we agree there. I have met more than one FA that is less than happy to be on the A/C, and I think you and I would agree that they should quit and find something else to do. But the fact is that the vast majority of FAs in the world are very pleasant and helpful and in no way try, certainly not intentionally out of spite for the customer, to ruin your day. They know as well as others that the industry relies on passengers buying tickets. Why in the world would they purposefully alienate them?

__________________I think Bigfoot is blurry, that's the problem. It's not the photographer's fault. Bigfoot is blurry, and that's extra scary to me. There's a large, out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside. Run, he's fuzzy, get out of here.
- Mitch Hedberg

The way the sympathizers react to a simple complaint is extraordinary and illustrates the fact that they will defend anything. The OP made a simple complaint. He outlined exactly how the sarcastic response of the FA was irritating and inappropriate. He also outlined in a later post exactly how he felt the exchange should have taken place. The response of the sympathizers, employees and ex-employees illustrates exactly what is wrong...

Looks like you've been dancing around my subject of flight attendant licensing. I shouldn't be surprised. Like other current and, allegedly, former, airline employees on here you have an agenda/interest to protect.

I'll "draw a picture" for you:

006--5827329

The information attached to this number would, of course, be kept secure by the flight attendant's employer. So, once again, Justme: How does one steal an identity when the only thing they have is a number like this?? Many police officers display a “badge number.” I'm sure some rogue cops have tried to use your argument as a basis for hiding badge numbers. So, doubtless, there would be a lot of protest over trying to implement “badge numbers” for flight attendants. The loudest of those protests would come from those flight attendants who lack the capacity to relate, appropriately, to customers, or, from flight attendants who have friends who act like this.

As to licensing: You admitted in your post there is only "certification." On the other hand, a pilot is not only "certified" in several areas, he is also licensed. A license would enable the DOT to step-in and remove a chronically bad flight attendant from service whereas his/her employer might not be inclined to do so. As you know the revocation process protects a pilot from a spiteful employer. Likewise, a flight attendant could be protected against a spiteful customer.

Like other current and, allegedly, former, airline employees on here you have an agenda/interest to protect.

You say it like you don't do the exact same thing. Bad mouthing and bashing everything an airline does, or airline employee (current and former) says, but when someone says something bad about your precious amtrak, you get all bent out of shape and defend them to the bitter end. Point is, we all have different ideas of what/who is right or wrong. I choose to defend the airlines when I see fit, and you choose to defend the rail roads. Nothing wrong with either, just a difference of opinion.

Originally Posted by Butch Cassidy Slept Here

I'll "draw a picture" for you:

006--5827329

The problem with this info is it doesn't have a name attached to it as you and others suggested it should. When you attach a name to it, someone with the knowledge and time could do some damage. As for police officers giving out a badge number, there is never a full name associated with it. When you ask a LEO what their name is, they will almost always answer by saying something like, "Seargant Banks," "Officer Cooper," "Detective Salazar." They don't say, "My name is Joe Dallas, my badge number is 714, and I work in the 2nd precinct M-F from 11 to 2." Like has been pointed out by others, there are very detailed records kept for each and every flight that ever takes off in the US, knowing that his first name was Scott and what your flight number was is plenty enough info to identify him internally.

Originally Posted by Butch Cassidy Slept Here

A license would enable the DOT to step-in and remove a chronically bad flight attendant from service whereas his/her employer might not be inclined to do so.

What difference would a "license" over a "certification" make? As I said before, FAs are on the A/C to PROVIDE A SAFE ENVIRONMENT IN THE CASE OF AN EMERGENCY. ANYTHING above and beyond that is extra, not required, and a luxury. So in that case, a "chronically bad" FA, would only be evaluated on their safety performance, NOT their ability to serve drinks with a smile. I'm sure the DOT could care less if the FA is "nice" when they serve margaritas, they only want to know that they can evacuate the A/C safely, efficiently, and quickly in an emergency. If a situation presents itself where the A/C needs to be evacuated and one FA cannot perform their job duties as required by the FAA/DOT, I would be willing to bet that their "certification" would be revoked until they can prove, thru further training and testing, that they are capable of the task. Again, safety is their primary, and only, job REQUIREMENT.

__________________I think Bigfoot is blurry, that's the problem. It's not the photographer's fault. Bigfoot is blurry, and that's extra scary to me. There's a large, out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside. Run, he's fuzzy, get out of here.
- Mitch Hedberg

I agree with the OP. Sounds like the f/a was rude, and he shouldn't have been.

The employee number is so incredibly impersonal and so easy to get wrong. The WalMart check out people have their first names on their IDs. Should they have their employee numbers, also? How about doctors. Should their coats say Dr. Jones, or 046859? I'm only guessing here, but knowing "Scott" on flight 699 from AUS to SEA on 14 Aug, will determine exactly who you are complaining about. Besides, you might write down the number wrong, or miss a number... what then? don't you think "scott" works better? Regardless, the OP has enough information to complain about the incident, without the employee number. So what's the problem? The f/a's employee number won't change how Alaska Air handles the letter.

The employee number is so incredibly impersonal and so easy to get wrong.

Impersonal? Absolutely. I still think it’s better than first names. Again, badge numbers have been used by police for years. And judging from the pay-outs some cities have made on lawsuit settlements it sounds like badge numbers are copied-down correctly. Also, a number is a better device to use in a scenario where flight attendants would be licensed by the DOT. A flight attendant might work for two, three or more airlines during his/her career. At least some do to my understanding. A single DOT-assigned number would enable the tracking of complaints, against a given flight attendant, from one airline to the next.

The status quo of first names, or no names and just appearances (the lady with the big wart on her forehead!), is probably ok in the absence of DOT licensing. Again, under the current state of affairs, after drug trafficking, setting the plane afire, and feeding a 4-year old passenger vodka, are considered, it seems there is little in the way of bad behavior, on the part of a flight attendant, that would, in the view of most US-based airlines, be a basis for termination.

As to the concept of flight attendants being on board only for safe evacuations and other safety issues: I think that’s a GREAT idea! If you just want to check on customers who are smoking; those who won’t sit-down; and those who are commiting “potty crime” (crapping outside your ticketed class)—NO PROBLEM. I think I can, somehow, get by without a lukewarm “Budget Gormet” tv dinner for lunch. I’ll take my chances with Chick-A-Fill, or Cinabun in the terminal concourse. It would be a great flight—I wouldn’t have to look at your face, and vice versa.

The problem is flight attendants are NOT just safety officers. Too many customers are painfully aware of that. Flight attendants are baby police: If you’re 6 years old, and say “bye, bye plane” too many times, you and Mommy are history! Flight attendants are literary police: Have a t-shirt on with anything written in Arabic? You’re dead meat! Wearing a t-shirt with a political statement—assuming it’s not favoring a politician to whom the airline donated money? You’re walking! Kissing may, or may not, be allowed. Flight attendants check for the “correct” gender combination as part of their “safety” duties, of course!